Exclusive – In a delayed appearance lacking precision and coherence, Hussein Amouta sought to justify his departure from the Jordanian national team with statements that reveal more than they clarify, raising questions as significant as those he attempted to answer. After a historic achievement—leading the team to its first-ever Asian Cup final—Amouta now, a year and a half later, places the blame for his exit on the Football Association and the media, citing “lack of professionalism” and “discomfort,” without providing a single concrete example to support his claims.
اضافة اعلان
The coach’s words seem more like a reshaping of the past to serve his current image than a truthful account. It is illogical that a coach could feel “uncomfortable” while achieving the greatest success in the national team’s history, and then remain silent about it until long after leaving. Even more puzzling is his admission that the decision to resign was made before the tournament, raising an ethical question: how can a coach enter a major continental competition fully intending to resign regardless of the results? If true, this reflects a lack of commitment on his part, not a lack of professionalism among others.
The timing of Amouta’s statements weakens them further. Words spoken too late lose their value, and generalized statements without specifics turn into personal impressions that cannot be relied upon. By referring to “some officials and media figures” without naming or providing examples, the coach creates ambiguity while claiming to reveal the truth. Truth is not conveyed in half-sentences or vague hints; it requires clarity and courage, both of which were entirely absent from his recent remarks.
Invoking family considerations as an additional reason appears as an attempt to soften criticism or cover contradictions. A professional coach is aware of the demands of the job before signing a contract, including time away from family. Mixing personal and professional reasons in a single statement does not create a convincing narrative—it only weakens it further.
Jordanian fans who supported Amouta and placed their full trust in him deserve more respect than vague, off-the-cuff remarks. They saw in him a project capable of leading the national team toward a World Cup dream. To date, these supporters have not received a genuine explanation for his departure, only belated statements attempting to rewrite events to justify his withdrawal.
The clear truth is that the national team delivered its best performance in history, and the environment in which Amouta worked—despite his criticisms—was not an obstacle to success. Claiming that the issue was a “lack of professionalism” without evidence raises doubts that the coach is merely trying to preserve an idealized image of himself, even at the expense of others.
In the end, Amouta’s statements do not reveal the truth behind his departure; they expose a larger issue: a fragmented narrative that contradicts the achievement on the field and undermines the credibility of his remarks. Truth cannot be restored a year and a half later through vague accusations; it must be spoken at the right time, clearly, and with courage, without the need for hints.
